The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

A-planting we will go (Day 2)

Word of warning revision (2:50 pm 11/30/2007) – The free-fire portion of the discussion is to be between each individual commenter and me, not between commenters. Just in case you forgot, this is my place; I pay the hosting bill.

A pair of updates that I waited until midnight to fly with (well, actually, I prepped this before midnight, but thanks to the magic of WordPress, they’re going out at the gong):

– When I last left this, we were at 8 plants. Well, Michelle’s upped the count to 9, though I don’t know whether to classify CAIR’s Yasmin as simply a fresh species or start a whole separate genus for groups merely aligned with the ‘Rats. Ah, tahellwitchit, since I call them DhimmiRATs, it counts. Since I remember 30 questions, we’re now at a full 30% of the questions being plants.

– Duncan Hunter, bless his soul, has a heart of a lion (and the money and support of a flea). My mailbox has a copy of a letter he sent head gardener Hillary Clinton:

November 29, 2007

Dear Senator Clinton,

Regarding the “plant”, retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr, that you sent to ask me the question at the CNN-YouTube debate last night in Florida "¦

Send more!!!

Merry Christmas,
Duncan Hunter

UUUURRRRRPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!

Revisions/extensions (11:20 am 11/30/2007) – Seems this place piqued the interest of a bunch of Salon types. If this place loads a bit slow; sorry about that, I don’t think I’ve had a serious crush of traffic before, so I don’t know exactly how my host handles a crush. Disagree with me all day long, but do try to find another line besides Jeff Gannon. Also, don’t piss me off. While I do enjoy the back-and-forth, I do have a hair-trigger.

Another nice, compassionate lefty. They’re the ones that throw around insults, personal and other ad hominem attacks, including remarks based on race, ethnicity, physical appearance. All we do is imply they’re into dhimmitude and they have an elitist, smarmy snit fit.

I guess the definition of “plant” is anyone who has not signed the Virginia Republican Party Loyalty Oath to get in?

When Republicans are used to the Jeff Gannon softballs that the White House planted in President Bush’s “news” conferences, anything other than “how is the mountain biking going” appears to be hostile questions.

I agree with you on the point of not disclosing the questioner’s affiliations. That’s a good point. I would hope that that CNN, or anyu other host for presidential debates would pick hard questioners from both sides and disclose accurate information about the questioners. As for going on Fox News I would disagree. To lend any kind of legitimacy to a propagada organizition would be a disservice.

That’s funny; I see CNN, MSNBC and various other outlets as propaganda outlets, but that hasn’t stopped the Republicans from going on there for debates. I guess it’s just that they (or in the case of MSNBC, its NBC parent) came about first, and espouse a liberal viewpoint most of the time.

Educated people have stopped repeating the false claim that I was a White House plant. I was then and remain an independent conservative journalist. You can read all about it in my book, “The Great Media War: A Battlefield Report” http://www.thegreatmediawar.com

Actually, it’s the left who has taken the lead in opposing theocracy of any kind.

God forbid you engage in debate on intellectual terms.

(The sentence that was here does cross the line. The remainder is pretty close, but since I swear, I can’t edit for that. -steveegg)…There has never been an attempt to instill a theocracy here in America. Never. Of course, you idiots view a Christmas tree actually called a Christmas tree at the state capitol a theocracy.

Do us a favor: go to Iran and protest against a theocracy. You wouldn’t know one if it swam up and bit you in the ass.

It’s you lefties that want to “co-exist” with a bloodthirsty cult that wants to kill a woman who allowed children to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.” A teddy bear, for crying out loud.

Your side is OK’ing sharia law in all sorts of places in America: Detroit and Chicago, where the public school system has built prayer rooms for the Muzzies,; Minneapolis, where the Muzzie cab drivers are being allowed to refuse service to passengers carrying alcohol. Having Ramalamadingdong celebrations while Christmas and Easter get silenced.

For argument’s sake, what difference does it make if a question comes from a Democrat or a Republican? A question is a question. Not that they answer them anyway.
Personally I think it would be more interesting if the Dems’ debates were hosted by Limbaugh and the Repubs’ by Randi Rhodes.

You’re somewhere between 1/3rd and 2/3rds right depending on the day and time, Bill.

While you’re on your self-righteous kick to eliminate attacks from the discussion, you might want to call MSNBC reporter Erin Burnett, or is it as I suspect and the “rules”, such as they are, don’t apply to you and your kind.

I really don’t understand why it was CNN’s duty to screen questioners based upon their political affiliations.

That kind of mindset is patently un-American to me.

I’m not particularly sympathetic to the Democrats, but I’m certainly no Republican. Nevertheless, if the latter held a debate here, I feel its my right to ask any of them a question regardless of my own political affiliations.

If the Republican nominee wins the presidency after all, he’ll be my president too, not just yours.

When an organization sells a set of questions as being from “undecided Republican voters”, it does become their duty to screen those questions in an attempt to ensure that those posing the questions are not in fact Democratic supporters. CNN sold said questions in just such a manner, and then refused to disclose that the 8 people politically-tied to various Democrats were, in fact, not “undecided Republican voters”.

I’ve seen suggestions from others that the Republican debates be held by partisan Democrats (well, many of them are moderated by them), and the Democratic debates be held by partisan Republicans (not exactly happening). Maybe that idea has some merit.